It's a wide open race after NH. Maybe, now that it's a horserace, we will actually get to hear some dueling rhetoric between the candidates regarding REAL change, the kind of change that John Edwards is talking about.

We don't need a woman, a black man, a white man, a uniter, a smooth talker or a negotiater as president, what WE NEED is a FIGHTER, and Edwards is a fighter. He has been knocking the chip off the shoulder of corporate America since he got out of law school, and they're afraid to get in the ring with him or even talk about it.

The only way to take power from these bastards is to beat it out of them, and that is what John Edwards is all about!
EDWARDS '08

GREAT ARTICLE.one way i can tell john edwards is becoming an effective populist,at least in the context of this horserace race is the response of mainstream media.i have noticed articles which declare his political career to be finished due to the results in iowa.this despite the fact that the careers of some of the greatest political figures of the 20th century did not reach their zenith until they were much older than edwards.churchill and reagan promptly come to mind.on the other hand,if msn WANTS your career to continue it doesn't even matter if YOU think its over.consider nixon in 1962.he even insulted the press by blaming his defeat in the cal gov race on it-there he stood,trembling with rage,glowering face encased with 5 0'clock shadow,words dripping with self pity-"you won't have nixon to push around anymore,because,gentlemen this is my last press conference." if that clip had been played as often as exposes about edwards' haircuts,and personal wealth-it would have been the end of tricky dick.i think about that when i watch those endless sets from msn about how john's perceived personal vanity disqualifies him as an authentic center-left populist.the hits keep coming,huh?

I'm shocked to read about people who will no longer vote for Kucinich because he asked people to make their second choice Obama. You'd think Obama was Lott, Imhofe, Lieberman the way people are reacting. Let's say you disagree with Kucinich on this one point. You'd abandon him entirely on this one issue (a caucus vote, not even a congressional one!) and endorse someone who agrees with you on _less_ issues than Kucinich does? It sounds like a bunch of people bought into the "Kucinich is a wasted vote" idea in their hearts and were looking for an opportunity to switch to a mainstream candidate.

For the record, here's what Kucinich himself has said about this issue:

"In answer to your questions about why I didn't support former Senator John Edwards on the second ballot in Iowa: I have serious concerns about his connections to a Wall Street hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group. While attacking others for accepting campaign money from Washington lobbyists, he is up to his ears in money from Wall Street special interests.
He made half a million dollars in a single year for attending a few meetings for Fortress and has invested a substantial part of his own personal wealth in the hedge fund whose portfolios are responsible for sub-prime predatory lending practices, Medicare privatization, and an entire range of corporate sharp dealings that are driving the middle class into poverty.
While I indicated Senator Obama as a preferred second choice in Iowa, Progressives have fundamental disagreements with him and all of the other Presidential candidates on most of their major positions on the issues.
We must have the courage of our convictions to fully support and vote for what it is we really want. For once, we must realize our power, stop playing tactical games, and vote as a bloc - which, as you know, is what the religious right does and why they often win.
We Progressives are in the majority in this election. We will win only when we refuse to compromise and vote with integrity."

Well, there you go - you may not agree with it, but it's a sane, rational reason for recommending Obama as the second choice. Now maybe folks can stop acting like he asked his caucus people to put kittens into a blender.

I hope Edwards does well in New Hampshire and South Carolina after that. He is the ONE candidate that I can support that has views that I believe in. Enough about character smearing and innuendo. Anyone that resorts to those tactics should be suspect from the get go. That tactic is about as adult as children taunting each other on the playground.

All I remember is my friend gushing over Patrick Swayze and Whoopi Goldberg taking over his body so that he could hug Demi Moore.

I would like to see someone make a spoof of The Sixth Sense staring Hillary "I see imaginary people crossing borders" Clinton. Let's call the second instance of her doing so Hamdani-gate.

It was hearing live the comments Hillary Clinton made on December 31. 2002 which caused me to lose all respect for her forever.

Ditto was in the movie Ghost. I liked the part where she was spinning the clay.

Aljazeera has a write-up on various candidates here:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/23953EDB-2468-4D5E-978E-123161305BF5.htm

Edwards and Obama etc are longer reads.

This is what they say about Kucinich and Gravel (by "contractors" do you think they mean Blackwater?):

Dennis Kucinich - Democrat

A previous candidate in the 2004 Democratic presidential race, Ohio congressman Kucinich is regarded by many as one of the most traditionally liberal candidates in the campaign.

With a campaign slogan of "strength through peace", he is the only Democratic candidate to have voted against the war in Iraq and has continued to call for not only US troop withdrawal but a removal of all US contractors from the country.

He also proposes a two-state solution to end the Middle East conflict, calling for an end to Israeli settlement expansion and for both sides to hold direct negotiations over Jerusalem's final status.

Mike Gravel - Democrat

The former senator from Alaska, who while in office once attempted to end the US military draft for the Vietnam war, is popular on the internet but has not managed to translate this favourably in polls of potential voters.

Gravel follows his Democratic rivals in calling for the swift withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and a two-state solution to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in talks which would include Hamas.

RE: - I'd like to see an Edwards/Nader ticket

Ditto

Kem - Your rant at 12:45 pm was nothing short of inspiring. Actually your points, along with those of several others, about Edwards over the past few day's have helped me to reconsider him as an actual populist, rather than a poser. I am still mostly a Kucinich fan and may well end up voting Green in the general election, but I will be seriously considering him. Whether or not I end up voting for him, I do believe he is the best thing the Dims have going, as I said before he seems to me to be the most electable and least offensive of the lot.

Jeez, Norman, I'm afraid you need to take a chill pill and get some perspective.

Sure, Kucinich shouldn't have volunteered his personal second choice. But how do you then make the leap that Edwards deserves your endorsement? I'm suppossed to believe Edwards is "improved" because he says he has? Sorry, not good enough.

Edwards may be talking the populist talk, but he has a really crappy record: He voted FOR China Free Trade, FOR the Iraq War (when four other Senators on the same Senate Select Intelligence Committee as Edwards knew to vote 'NO'), and FOR the Patriot Act. He WILL NOT COMMIT to ending NAFTA, he won't "take the leap to single-payer health care...

But you know all this. So the question of who to vote for in the Primary should not be complicated.

In the Primary, you vote for the best record, the best stand on the issues, the best strength of character to vote against an illegal and unneccesary war of aggression WHEN IT WAS UNPOPULAR to do so in Washington. Kucinich is the best, so vote for him.

Who's better between Obama and Edwards? There's plenty of evidence that they both leave a lot to be desired. But guess what? We live in California, so we don't need to worry about it. Kucinich is SO MUCH BETTER than both of them, that it's a nice easy choice come Feb 5th.

Sarcasm, __ perhaps that is in your mind?

"Like sweet bells jangled, out of tune and harsh."

~ Shakespeare, __ hamlet ~

"Edwards: The American people deserve to know about President Bush's illegal spying on Americans."

- - -

"In late November, we sent questionnaires to the top candidates–measured by funds raised and poll standings–from each major party. We asked each the same 10 questions."

"Telecommunications companies such as AT&T have been accused in court of opening their networks to the government in violation of federal privacy law. Do you support giving them retroactive immunity for any illicit cooperation with intelligence agencies or law enforcement, which was proposed by the Senate Intelligence Committee this fall (S 2248)?

Edwards: The American people deserve to know about President Bush's illegal spying on Americans. Providing big telecom companies retroactive immunity would mean that the facts about these abuses will never come out in court. Congress should stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law by rejecting any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecom companies."
http://www.worldtwist.com/john-edwards/

Kucinich endorsing Obama gave him 6 to 9% of the vote. Tactical move?

Endorsing Obama as second choice was a tactical decision by Kucinich and Richardson to stymie Clinton. We, too, supported Kucinich in the 2004 Campaign. We live in California. If it's fait accompli by the point of the California primary, we'll support Kucinich with our votes; however, if it's close, we'll support Edwards!

Thank you for your heart felt sarcasm. ;)

David Suzuki is usually mild mannered.

Edwards was just in "The Situation Room" on CNN and he said that he planned to take all COMBAT troops out of Iraq and to not get involved in any COMBAT missions. That doesn't rule out keeping Peace-keepers in Iraq or even getting involved in Peace-keeping missions in the future.

Edwards talks about Free Trade but doesn't say anything about the SPP

What is the SPP?
The Security and Prosperity Partnership is the latest move toward continental economic and social integration aimed at establishing common policies between Canada, the United States and Mexico in 300 policy areas, including:

* environmental protection
* security
* energy
* food and health standards
* foreign affairs
* military
* immigration

http://www.ndp.ca/stopthespp

Thank you for the lessons teacher.

RE: - I take things too personal HUCK??? Your personal opinons are warped.

The two things don't need to be mutually exclusive.

When intelligent people get angry, they don't focus so much on discrediting the baiter's weak points. One doesn't engage in baiting if one has strong un refutable points.

Do you remember Phillip Rushton who compared Whites, Blacks and Asians and came up with a theory that there is a negative correlation between intelligence and sexual stamina? David Suzuki became so upset while discussing these ideas that he could not discredit them properly. According to the Professor I had at the time, discrediting these ideas were not difficult because they were based on unsound science.

We later found out why David Suzuki was so upset with Rushton's theory:

(later picture of David Suzuki wearing a watch and a figleaf omitted - Suzuki insists that the photo was not doctored) :rolleyes

Seriously, how do the Dem candidates compare on the Environment. Edwards says that he plans to sign Kyoto - but there is a big difference between signing onto the Kyoto accord and actually planning to live up to the targets.

I agree, chessgames56.

It's now or never for America; talk isn't enough, we need walk. America will choose responsible leadership or death.

I don't actively have animus against any of the Dem candidates except Hillary. I find Hillary to be a DLCer, a VichyDem and typical Pol-style lie-in-your-face person. She's just a slightly less aggressive version of Bush/Cheney, imho. There's too much money at stake for a tried-n-true DLCer like HC to walk away from the groaning bounty of the Homeland Security/War table. She's snuggled in tight with Big Ins, Big Pharma, etc. Nothing will change. I won't vote for HC unless I'm forced to try and keep some insane person like Guliani out of the office.

Obama strikes me as a handsome, elegant, well-educated, sober and congenial guy. But all too bought-and-paid-for DLC-style. If HC is a less aggressive Buch/Cheney, Obama seems like a kinder gentler Hillary. Which means he isn't just second choice for Kucinich. (Ptui! No more support for Kucinich from my wallet. While I style agree with most of his positions, that "Obama second choice" deal in Iowa really pissed me off. If he's serious, he needs to leave the dem party and quit this tap dancing.) Obama is also "second choice" (after HC) for the DLC-- because they're worried that Hillary can't win.

I am liking Edwards more and more. I have my eye on him. I have been worried that perhaps he's just being a political shapeshifter-- becoming more left and populist and progressive for the primaries. But I dunno-- I can't quite explain it-- perhaps I'm being "taken in" but that populism and sense of (almost pugnacious) FIGHT really appeal to me. FIGHT is what's been missing from these weasely Vichy dems who run the show now. Perhaps that's why it stirs my heart so to look in Edwards' eye and see this-- fire. The guys seems to be willing to step up to the plate and demand justice in a way that I haven't seen in a long time.

That said-- "Won't get fooled again!" I've got my eyes and ears open. Here's hoping for a free and fair election. I suspect that the Establishment/MSM/War Machine has anointed Guliani as The Successor. That thought'll keep a fire in your belly.

Peace to All

This is directed toward anyone not living in a social and political vacuum.

Traditionally, nothing is more sacred to Americans than the right to CHOOSE AND THINK for oneself. Apparently that is no longer a norm honored by people who assert their progressive values. When diversity is crushed under the weight of a few ideological fundamentalists, nothing is free.

I'd like to see an Edwards/Nader ticket, but not as a third party, because that would just be to send a message, not really win and correct anything.

Kem, my friend, don't feed the trolls. Your advice to just scroll past their posts was good, take it yourself. We have better things to discuss.

By the way, I'm a Nader voter and might be again. We'll see how things go.

kathyodat

Did any here see I have had a hissly fit? Do I need medication? You are proving my points about you HUCK. Press on.

You have pretty well defined what John Edwards has done in that regard JCARLESKI and thank you for getting us back on the issue. John Edwards is not afraid to admit a mistake, he also displays a high degree of honesty, sobriety and common sense. He also will pull our troops out of Iraq, he will join the other nations of the world to initiate a program to fight global warming and he will uphold and defend our constitution. Some say he is just another crook, a liar and a charlaton. I don't see that in him at all.

I do hope all can see where HUCK is comiong from with his post at 12.36 pm. I or no one ever said there was anything wrong with voting for whomwever they chose. I have said who I won't vote for, or who I personally support, but ihave never attacked Obama.

What I and others are arguing, is the constant bull being spit out about John Edwards. Then HUCK twists it, writing I and others don't respect democracy. He insults and then will cry that I am irrational and mean spirited, if I reply to such. Remember the little instigator who was always the side kick for the school bully, always getting things riled up and starting fights, then standing back and watching? __ That's HUCK.__ Don't listen to him and DOUGWAGNER.

Oh, by the way Kem, you bring new insight to the Art of the Hissy Fit. Carry on, Lad.

Try some new meds, Kem.

Alright, here's a point I haven't seen yet. Maybe it's valid, maybe it's not - just want to see where it goes.

There's a lot of talk on this thread about Edwards' previous voting record and how it has changed or 'waffled', what have you. Assume (and yes, this is a heck of an assumption) that the national will in 2002 was in fact to go to war in Iraq. Since then, it has clearly changed. Would, then, a politican who in the past voted for the war effort when it was in line with the national will and now against it be one who is keeping his or her finger on the pulse of national desire? Would a politician who has never changed his or her opinion be following an agenda that isn't really in line with what the country wants?

Of course, I want a candidate with principles. But even more so, I want a candidate who is listening to the populace and following our national will, whatever that is.

Discuss. :)

I take things too personal HUCK??? Your personal opinons are warped. I take it as it is, what is self evident and plain common sense. I also am not in the minority here, you and DOUGWAGNER have been told off by many others here. You have primarily selected Kem Patrick as your attacking point, perhaps because I post frequently and am a good target for you, for your continual attempts to prove you are right.

If our country is being destroyed and people such as you cannot see it, and support a candidate who actually COULD alter the disasterous course Bush has inacted, __ then yes, I take it personal, this is my country too.

I want our Contitution to be honored and upheld, I want us to support the war on global warming, I want our asses out of the Mid-East and I want our big corporations placed under control, where they don't run the country, insure jobs are continually outsourced, insure the wealth is in the hands of a very few and we are a 100% facist state. I want clean energy and stop the pollution of the only planet we have to live on. I want our children to have a decent life with excellent education options and decent, affordable health care. We are running out of time and John Edwards is our only hope at the present time and YOU TWO TROLLS have constantly attacked him, with half truths and petty issues.

Personal, it don't make one bit of difference how I take it HUCK, it's how ALL of us take it. Alone we the people, we citizens fall, ___ together we can win.

Support whoever you want to Kem. Unlike you and Mike and a few others here, I respect Democracy. I respect your right to vote any way you choose to. Maybe after you reach maturity, you might even respect my right (and others) to vote how we choose to.

Immunity for telecommunications companies ..

John?
John Edwards?
Do you have an opinion, John Edwards?

Yeah, HUCK, I always admired Ralph Nader, he did a lot of good for Americans, ____ in the field of safety issues. He also offered some very good political views.

He also insured Bush was our president, by allowing his over inflated ego, to overcome his common sense and decency. So I would never support him as a presidential candidate, one who could only split the vote, with not a prayer of being elected. Never would I support a candidate, who's only possible purpose, was to send a message. The message rang hollow and now we have a serious situation, of our country is on the brink of a depression, has a broken military, and over a milion dead for no reason, except control of oil in the mid-east. Be proud of supporting Nader three times HUCK and indeed, you are a troll in my eyes. __ Not even a very bright troll.

Oh, by the way, I left a message for your latest distortion over on the Mellencamp thread.

Get a grip Kem. I think you take things a tad too personal.

And DOUGWAGNER, HUCK, had you been running here, you would have 1% of the vote, ___ if you were eligable to vote that is. You also offer no substance, only with continual repeating, long winded bull, you attack another candidate, attacking the ONLY one who can beat the Republican candidate. You post your nonsense on every single thread or artiicle about John Edwards. So if you care about America, why do you insist on doing that? Gettin paid? What was it, 30 pieces of silver? Whatever, you are the one who should be shamed. Of couse a sophist would not understnd the word shame.

Sounds like sour grapes to me Kem. I guess some people just don't handle their fear and angst very well. As a last resort, imature people always resort to name calling. Carry on with your next hissy fit, my friend becuase no amount of name calling or existential fear will change the fact that Edwards is finished. Although it probably makes sense for Obama to choose Edwards as his running mate to appease all the children.

As for me, I voted for Nader in the last three presidential elections and if that makes me a troll I wear the designation with pride. Carry on...

I beleve about 5 to 7% of Obama's votes came from Iowa's Kucinich supporters. Had the man not made a DEAL and endorsed Obama at the last hours, that swing of votes would have assured Edwards would have the headlines today. Politics is dirty business with some.

DOUGWAGNER, HUCK, If you don't want to be percieved as a troll, don't act like a troll. If one lives in an outhouse, they smell like shit.

You say post links Dougwagner, the links you post are just those written by other trolls. They are a bit long and screw up the thread too. Of course that's what trolls do.

If Hillary really cared about America, she would drop out now and let Obama and Edwards fight it out. Had that been the case in Iowa, it would have been Obama 38 to 40% and John Edwards 57 to 59%. I also don't understand why so many supported Obama, when he doesn't want to pull out of Iraq. He really offers little of substance, he's just another smooth talker. ___ That may be smart politics, but do we REALLY want or need, another SMART politician.

Indeed dream, just thought it was notable. Stay tuned, should get interesting. ;) One thing that disturbs me about Obama is that he wants to compromise with the right. One wonders just how much and what he is willing to compromise. That goes for Edwards or any other candidate as well. Hillary has/is already compromised, so she is a non-starter. And it is true that any leader can only lead the people to where they're willing (or allow themselves) to be taken.

That's last night's news, chessgames56; let the coffee perk; check the news again later in the day.

I prefer the truth regardless of who wins.

It seems to be a pretty easy decision. Edwards is the least of all possible electable evils...and he is talking a good populist/anti-corporate game now..we can either choose to believe him or not..but the other electable evils..Obama and Hillary aren't even talking in the right direction..so whats all the hub bub about?

Oh and, last time around in Iowa, they were instructed that it was who was "most electible" that mattered the most. This time it was all about "change", while whoever was the "most electible" came in ar 4% as voters reason for casting a vote.
See how easy it is to manipulate so many with the flimsiest of empty banners to stand behind?

The first challenge was to put the brakes on the Clinton claim to the throne, but with Obomba the status quo baton is passed. Edwards hung in there although he might as well have been Gravel for all the recognition his presence received. Between Tweety Matthews gushing over Obama, apparently his latest man crush, and the "entrance polls" announcing the race between Oboma & Clinton only, the board in the background announced Edwards lead in the early returns--the elephant in the room no one noticed. Edwards hung in there despite being ignored and that he had only a fraction of the dirty money to buy his election. Huckabee, also without major funding, at least got major coverage. Here is a thread from Democratic Underground this morning (it is a Democratic primary after all):

"Gosh! If Obama came in 1st and Clinton was 3rd, that means SOMEONE must have been 2nd!
Anyone have any idea who that might have been? Because you would have to look long and hard at the papers this morning before you would find out who.

This crap has got to stop!"

For those paying attention and whose awareness surpasses the manufactured consensus of pop culture icons, it is more than obvious that it is Edwards who represents the true change precisely because he is so openly dismissed. It is Edwards who represents a challenge to the status quo and he is viewed as a threat--not Oboma with his vapid concillatory language of making nice with fascists--and his bland dismissal of the 60's. Where would he be without the 60's?

The issues are constantly changing and evolving.
Those who don't want progressive changes keep looking for and finding new ways to interfere with or prevent them.
The Edwards' keep adapting, while at the same time deepening their understanding and changing accordingly. They're looking for ways to avoid mistakes; their past mistakes and mistakes others have made.
In healthcare, their current plan is to implement changes in stages with the hope of avoiding the healthcare quagmire the Clintons experienced.
It will be interesting to see where their efforts lead; to learn from them.
It will be interesting to see what they are criticized for, how, and when; let's see if we can distinguish between those who simply disagree with them and those who want to thwart a progressive agenda regardless of who puts it forth; there will also be those who simply prefer their candidate.

MikeBinSC January 3rd, 2008 4:45 pm

"I like that idea thinkingmom, and I'll go a little farther, NO MORE TEXAS/ARKANSAS MAFIA!!"

Just a small point. The Bush clan is from Maine, not Texas, and real Texans do not and never have claimed Bush the lesser as one of us.

Lobo Gris

dougnwagner, don't pat yourself on the back, as all you did was muddy the water and give out a lot of false and misleading information. Hell, I thought that was the job of the corporate MSM, are you working for them? You didn't change any minds, we know that Edwards is much more progressive than Obama, and it isn't over until it's over.

I had to fish at the CNN site to find out that Edwards came in second. Corporate America, especially the corporate media, must be really frightened. It was easier to find out what was happening with Dodd and Biden, than Edwards. Somebody definitely wants to take him off the radar. By inordinately hyping the importance of Iowa, it appears they hope to discourage voters away from supporting him. It's a sham we must see through, whoever we may choose to support.

Norm the Democratic Party hack is at it again!

Mr. "know it all" shows his true colors.

dougnwagner,

Please SMARTEN UP! WTF is the matter with you posting such long URLs in your comments? It completely screws up reading the article. In future, please use something like ,,,

http://tinyurl.com/create.php

... to shorten your URLs.

Thanks

With Obama as president, will the draft be on his agenda? Obama wants to add almost one-hundred thousand new troops to the U.S. military. He wants to bomb Pakistan, which would destabilize the nuclear-armed nation, and also wants to bomb Iran. He's a confused person. No wonder the GOP want him as the Democratic candidate. They're afraid of John Edwards since they know he will win.

Obama is clearly the most electable. Democrats, Republicans, and Independnts voted for him. Genuine antiwar Americans voted for him. Kucinich endorsed him as a second choice. Obama is a CONSISTENT PROGRESSIVE, like Kucinich, though not as progressive as Kucinich. Maybe Kucinich will head the Obama Peace Department.

This country needs to be brought together to tackle global warming, lobbying reform, and economic inequality. 'Fighting' John Edwards has flip-flopped on major issues like the Iraq War and Trade Policy as public opinion has changed. He cannot be trusted to be the progressive change in this country. He is long on rhetoric but short on accomplishment, and has questionable commitment to the Progressive principles like transparency and honesty that I believe in. Too often his actions commit one reality, while his words argue for another reality. I hope Edwards supporters take time to reflect on the points I have made and the end of the Edwards campaign tonight. (Those of you who argue with WSWS articles that genocide did not occur in Yugoslavia or that do not understand Obama's simple foreign policy point that violent radicalism in Pakistan and Afghanistan has to be addressed militarily, economically, politically, and educationally, and that we need "a democratic ally in Pakistan, not just an ally" are totally lost).

As for Obama's electability, it is unwarranted to say Edwards was MORE electable than Obama.

Zogby Poll. Dec. 12-14, 2007. N=1,000 likely voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.2.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

Edwards loses to McCain and Giuliani in this poll. Obama is the only candidate to beat all 5 Republicans. Go figure.

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 ) Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM Required For Majority: 1/2 Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114 Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

YEAs —77 Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bond (R-MO) Breaux (D-LA) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Campbell (R-CO) Cantwell (D-WA) Carnahan (D-MO) Carper (D-DE) Cleland (D-GA) Clinton (D-NY) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) Daschle (D-SD) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Edwards (D-NC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Gramm (R-TX) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Helms (R-NC) Hollings (D-SC) Hutchinson (R-AR) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Miller (D-GA) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Santorum (R-PA) Schumer (D-NY) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-NH) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Thomas (R-WY) Thompson (R-TN) Thurmond (R-SC) Torricelli (D-NJ) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

NAYs —23 Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Chafee (R-RI) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Graham (D-FL) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Stabenow (D-MI) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)

"Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?" - Barack Obama

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php

VOTE OBAMA. CHANGE AMERICA. CHANGE THE WORLD. HAPPY NEW YEAR.

Obama has won. I'm not going to put anyone down the way they have put me down. If you're full of it, you're full of it, and I will call you on it, but I'm not going to call you a troll or a neocon. (By the way I'm not a troll or a neocon. Follow the links.)

"The process of verifying a student's college is 99 percent accurate, but there is room for error in verfiying students' addresses, said Lucas Damicon, Web developer for Student Affairs.

According to an e-mail from Barbara Wharton, director of student affairs assessment, nearly 40 percent of undergraduate students do not list a local address.

South Campus Senator Doug Wagner said that is a major problem bec ause many races are close and a decided by a few votes.

"There's people who didn't get elected because of the imprecise counting of votes," Wagner said. "We don't know who is voting for which candidate."

http://media.www.thelantern.com/media/storage/paper333/news/2005/01/26/Campus/Potential.Usg.Election.P...

"Doug Wagner, a junior in political science, is a member and former president of the Ohio State Campus Green party. Wagner said he believes young people are drawn to third parties like his because they are unsatisfied with what the two major parties have to offer. He said young people should vote for parties that have the same values that they do. He said he believes parties like the Green Party are more in touch with the beliefs of younger Americans.

"Politics today are oversimplified, because it is reduced to choosing between Coke and Pepsi," Wagner said.

http://media.www.thelantern.com/media/storage/paper333/news/2004/08/05/Campus/Youth.Politics.Take.A.Mu...

Post a link if you want to make a point. Otherwise you're just making facts up.

It does look like the evangelical political nightmare is still alive and about to propel Huckajesus (thanks to David Domke for that term) into the position of Crusading Commander.

Lillith, thanks for your comments, I appreciate it.

Found it - Obama wants to talk to the President of Canada about NAFTA:

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjU2CBEIfh4

RE: That means 66% didn't want him.

No, just that they wanted someone else slightly more, ;)

So I guess Romney will be the Republican candidate. So who do you think he will prefer as his VP - McCain foods or Thompson's arms?

We know that Huckabee is going down after Iowa and no one else is in a position to catch up.

Newsworld did say that Clinton could come in third.

Heard on another board that Obama said that he would be willing to meet with the Canadian President if elected. Did he actually say this? If so, I want to hear it on video.

Obama's better than Clinton but still pulling for Edwards who came in SECOND!

Dang, Nathaniel,

you beat me to it......

Osama-Bomber is going to get us into another hot war in Pakistan so I can't support him. Edwards is ailing right out of the gate.. and the holly rollers have Huck Fin leading them into the holy war for the tribulation and second coming.

Not a good start.

Obomber is going to bomb out against anybody in the general election, and we all know it.

Four more years of Religious Fanatisism! Do you believe it? I think the outcome has more to do with touch-screen voting machines than anything else. I know it's not over.... but with hackable computers tallying the outcome..... maybe it's already over.

see http://www.bradblog.com/

Hi KEM, good to see you keeping the trolls in check.

Nominate Obummer and Elect a Republican President!

Hi Pacplayer, yeah it would not surprise me one bit if Huck and Dougwagner were one and the same, or sitting next to one another in a Karl Rove office.

Last Hurrah for John Edwards HUCK? We'll see. That was round 1.

Scuse me Mike Bill, I meant to type millionare, not bilionare. Anyway, Edwards cares for us and he isn't in the race for his own good or to fill his pockets as many are and have been.

Obama ran a good campaign in Iowa. He has about 34% of the vote. That means 66% didn't want him. Hillary and John Edwards split most of that percentage. Then some of Obama's votes came from Kucinich, let us not forget that. John Edward isn't hurt by second place in Iowa. Bill Clinton lost big time in Iowa. he got 3% of the farmers vote. Hillary is hurt, she was the projected big time winner just two months ago. We'll see how it goes in New hampshire, there are less pig farmers there.

YOU have to get on NH newspaper sites. The COrporate Media and even the fake left gatekeepers at Aire America were really biased against Edwards. Its YOU or nobody. I spent hours in Iowa on line and will do the same in NH

Post Obomb ems money stats from Open Secret everywhere.

If obomb em wins it will be ONE MORE TIME OF I WOULD HAVE INVADED IRAQ EVEN HAD I KNOWN THERE WERE NO WMDS.

Well thinking mom those are the projected results, let's wait to see the final, shall we. Iowa is only the beginning, and is irrelevant as often as it is relevant. I know one thing for sure, Edwards is the best hope for the Dims, he would take the general election against any of the Repugs. Obummer has not got a chance of winning a general election, all the better for us as far as I am concerned. Billary might win a general election depending on the Repug of choice, and definately not if the Repugs nominate McCain.

See: www.wsws,org for some interesting analysis:
Obama is one of the top-tier Democratic candidates and is thoroughly in line with the militarist strategies of the ruling elite. Just like the Democratic Party as a whole, Obama's criticisms of the Iraq war are not about ending it, but how to make it succeed. Currently he advocates a partial withdraw from Iraq to re-focus on the "war on terror." He has called for more troops in Afghanistan, and unilateral US military incursions into Pakistan.
In a Foreign Affairs magazine piece from July 2007, Obama laid out how he intends to preserve US military dominance: "We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale." His current campaign includes recommendations to add another 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines to the standing military.
Congressman Kucinich is known as the "antiwar" candidate and has suggested that he would withdraw all troops from Iraq and close military bases there. His willingness to back the openly militarist Obama demonstrates—far more than his pseudo-leftist rhetoric—that he has no intention of challenging the geo-political interests of American imperialism.
Noting that all of the leading Democratic candidates have continued to fund the war, including Obama, Kucinich states, "their judgment was wrong. They have repeatedly said 'all options' are on the table with respect to Iran. Intelligence reports revealing that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program four years ago again demonstrates that their judgment was wrong." Thus, Obama funds the criminal enterprise in Iraq and threatens to launch war against Iran but that should not prevent Kucinich's supporters from voting for the Illinois senator.

Not to mention that the "Islamo-fascists" Bush wants us to kill were, and are, in Bosnia.

The muhajadeen the US funded and supplied in Afghanistan in the 80s simply moved to Bosnia in the 90s - still funded by the US, but also by drug-running- the traditional CIA way to fund raise. And the US propaganda machine supported them in Bosnia just as it supported them in Afghanistan. They only switched after 9-11, because they were a convenient scapegoat.

Is anyone else amazed by the movie "Charlie Wilson's War"?
I thought the propaganda had changed, but here they are going back and lauding the muhajadeen again. What's up with that?

We need to quit holding up the Yugoslavia bombing as a "good war". It's particularly disgusting considering that the Croatian strongman the US supported was literally a Nazi sympathizer, and yet the US, as usual, used Hitler as their justification for attacking Yugoslavia.

They used depleted uranium bombs and they targeted civilian infrastructure-both war crimes. Yet "progressives" insist on lauding Clinton for the same thing they criticize Bush for- launching an unprovoked attack using bogus justifications.

http://wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/icj-m16.shtml

Kem you have a point. Match up polls show Edwards beating ANY Republican by the widest margin of all the Democrats, and with the Republicans hard at work organizing the theft of the 2008 election, we need all the help we can get. I've said before, and will again, I think he's attractive to the voters (unfortunately an imperative for election), even with the corporate media going after him with teeth bared. Interesting that Hillary loses to ANY Republican in match up polls. Ought to give those super delegates something to worry about.

dougwagner didn't use up any of my oxygen, I can scroll pretty fast myself.

kathyodat

LOL Kathyodat, I was wondering why you had an Obama sticker on your care :P Just didn't sound like you. I'm thouroughly confused as to who I'm voting for now. I'm in Florida so it doesn't really matter who I vote for anyway...

auspiciousbunny, Edwards didn't just sit on his hands after the 2004 election. He raised $2 million to launch a poverty center at UNC at Chapel Hill to identify and implement ways to fight poverty. He co-edited a book of essays about fighting poverty the center is publishing. He's been walking his talk. I've never seen him as an out and out liar, unlike some politicians I could name. And maybe walking picket lines, rebuilding homes in New Orleans, and feeding the elderly in nursing homes is political show, but it also shows us where his heart is. With the disadvantaged. Beats kissing babies and holding fund raising dinners.

In my last post, I was referring to my Kucinich bumper sticker (looked confusing the way I put it).

kathyodat

Why did Obama's presidential campaign receive its earliest substantial donations from the same people who funded the Swift Boat attack ads against Kerry? (see See NYT's story 3/7/07: Jared Abbruzzese – supporter of Swift Boats and Obama. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/us/politics/07obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all)
Why did Obama get his first major media mention from conservative pundits? Why has Karl Rove been cheering Obama on? Could it be that Obama has no chance in the general elections and would be an easy candidate for the GOP to beat, at least by a hair, despite their current problems in the polls? Could it be that the only Democratic candidates Wall Street prefers are either Republicrat DLCers or unelectable, or both?

Edwards is the only Democrat who has a good chance of winning the general election. He's the only candidate who could reasonably be expected to win a red state. What would the match up between HRC and Edwards be if Obama was not running? Why has Edwards been so frozen out of the corporate media spotlight?

instructive:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3927315#3927390

jamaz -

provide, as Solomon did not, some specific background on Edwards' policy achievements regarding his anti-big business stance.

Kathyodat

Man I feel the same way.

I guess I don't have many illusions as far as politics in this country are concerned at this point.

I wish Kucinich would answer some questions for real. He owes that to his supporters. And I wish Nader (if his support of Edwards is just not an over-hyped media ploy) would give us some of his excellent research as to why Edwards is a real anti-big business candidate, rather than a crafty politician who knows which way the wind is blowing.

I like some of his talk. But I just can't bring myself to vote for someone based on their talk. I have read that Edwards has had connections to big energy companies, such as the coal industry. Where is money coming from? He hasn't, like Cindy Sheehan, decided to refuse all corporate donations to his campaign.

Now that dougnwagner has used up most of the oxygen in the room, can we get back to some give-and-take dialogue?

As BeForKids says above, Edwards is clear as a bell on the MOST important issue: "We can't invite the corporations to the negotiating table on wealth redistribution!" To which I would add, "or invite them to the debate on environmental hazards, misleading advertising, mergers that consolidate power and choke off real competition, etc. etc." Corporations look out for themselves, so government must look out for US!

I can't think of a single problem we have domestically (and many internationally) that could not be ameliorated or actually solved by putting the average American's interests first, and re-establishing the necessary controls over the private sector that used to prevent our capitalist system from being predatory.

I hope Dennis's supporters disregard his call to throw their votes to Obama if DK doesn't hit the 15% threshold; I find Obama personally appealing, but we need a man of steely determination to take on the banks, Wall Street, and the corporate world in general -- and that is Edwards.

Hi BeForKids. My favorits song is. "Prop me up beside the jukebox when I die, ________Lord I wanna go to heaven, but don't wanna go tonight."

Edwards is the only Democrat that can run a good race against the repugs choice. He's the best choice and the best person running since JFK.

Wow is this a dougnwagner blog or what? Thanks to Norman Solomon's insights.

Watching the candidates and how they present themselves, I had already made the leap from Kucinich to Edwards. For me, he is the only Democrat that can bring a more populist message to the entire country, rather niche groups and special interests. America is a country of mostly working class. We need someone who understands that and can adapt to circumstances which requires a saavy intellect. I'd love to see states like my own California go for Edwards in a few weeks.

auspiciousbunny, I didn't see much in common between Dennis and Obama on the war. Isn't Obama refusing to commit to being out before 2013?

I would really like him to explain why he did that. I haven't taken his bumper sticker off my car - yet.

kathyodat

The reason DK wants Obama to win in Iowa is to take away momentum from his (DK's) real rival, John Edwards, in NH. Ultimately, DK is a politician, which may come as a shock to some of his supporters. DK will probably end up with 1% of the vote in NH just like last time.

Here's a lovely quote about Obama:
"Barack Obama's latest book reveals the presidential aspirant to be a rank racial accommodationist and political opportunist. The Illinois Senator urges empathy for those in power, labels critics on the Left cranks and zealots, and whitewashes America's past and present crimes. In the final analysis, Obama is an 'authoritarian corporate imperial insider' - a front-running candidate for betrayal."
from http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=61

Thanks to all the good people here speaking well of Edwards.

Vern, I can't agree with you about Dennis' sour grapes. I am convinced he's grown way beyond that. When Ralph essentially said he had no clue why Dennis threw his support to Obama, it was because he also did not believe Dennis acted out of spite. He's not a spiteful person. Whether it was a smart political move or not, I'm guessing it was a political move.

It was wrong of Edwards to connive with Hillary about keeping "the riff-raff" out of the debates (my words, not theirs). And I'm sure their (or at least, Hillary's) campaigns colluded with the Des Moines register and the AARP to keep Dennis out of the debates. Which, considering his populist and single payer positions, the above would be happy to cooperate. The last thing the AARP (defender of the elderly!) wants anyone to hear is "single payer health care".

So no, Edwards isn't perfect, but he's saying we can't invite the corporations to the negotiating table on wealth redistribution. Do you see any value in inviting the mafia to negotiate crime legislation? He seriously wants to redistribute the national wealth and restore our moribund middle class. I can vote for that. And I don't have to hold my nose to do it. I don't have to save my vote for the perfect candidate, although I would love to vote for one (Dennis), but in voting for Edwards, I'm not voting for a corporate whore. And I was considering voting for him even before he said we need to get out of Iraq ASAP. He just put the icing on the cake for me. I've always been an idealist, but not a purist.

One of my favorite songs is from the Rolling Stones: You Can't Always Get What You Want - and if you try sometime you get what you need.

St John, I am very disappointed in Kucinich as well. He is taking his supporters for a bunch of fools if he thinks we will just switch to Obama. It undermines people's trust that we have put in him to tell the truth and not be disingenuous. He must know very well his platform and Obama's have little in common, other than Obama's opposition to the Iraq War.

Also why aren't Kucinich, Nader and others moving to form a viable third party of candidates with real ideas? Why the endorsement of the Democratic party mahcine?

As for Edwards, I've been casting about, but could someone please demonstrate to me what he has accomplished as far as fighting big business? I won't vote for someone based on their campaign talk. Give me a break.

Once again, I'm not in tune with American voters...I miss called the outcome...How could it be a three way first place tie going in...with Edwards dominating the second choice vote and Obama wins? Maybe it has to do wiht that one night party switching thing they allow? Or did Obama's machine really get out the new voters? With as much time as Edwards put in Iowa, the people there couldn't have missed his message...Do they really NOT get it?

Kucinich betrayed the left when he threw support to Obama instead of Edwards. There has not been as populist a candidate as Edwards in over 50 years. What was Kucinich thinking???

Why is this thread dominated by 2 or 3 posters, especially dougwagner? Such domination causes me to reject even the consideration of the proposed candidate, Obama.

I am also very disappointed in Dennis' asking for second ballots to go to Obama. There is no good reason for him to ignore Edwards. I heard DK interviewed on KPFK/Pacifica radio yesterday afternoon(01/02/08)by Lila Garrett. She directly asked him, at least twice, to give his reasons for choosing Obama and not Edwards. For the first time, Dennis sounded like a politician and avoided the question. I am less inclined to consider his candidacy because the main reason I like him is his principled stand on progressive issues, and the fact he does not sound like a politician. Thank you, Norman, for elucidating us with this information. I respect you and your consistency on the political scene. I'd like to see Dennis explain his decision. Until he does so, I can no longer support his candidacy.

This hurts my heart.

peace,
st john

BTW, Did Norman Solomon really vote for David Cobb like he said he would in 2004?

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0628-01.htm

Something to think about: Obama and Kucinich both support Single Transferable Voting

Obama introduced resolution SB 1789 in 2002 to introduce single transferable voting in Illinois. http://fairvote.org/?page=1755

www.kucinichonline.com/pdfs/Kucinich_Campaign_Reform_and_IRV.pdf

The Green Party is also in favor of single transferable voting. (The Party I will vote for if Obama does not win.)

Come on, Norm.

True, Kucininch is more Progressive, but anybody who supports STV/IRV and tries to reform lobbying at both the state and national levels is someone I also consider a solid Progressive as well.

Vote Obama. Change the World.

You notice how fast I scrolled past the DOUGWAGNER and his sidekick HUCH'S posts. One and a half seconds. I wonder if they are shlls for the Republicans? I ftheir choice wins, he probably won't be able to beat Romney or Hucabee.__ Edwards will.

Whatever, celebrity--all you have to do is read the article for evidence that Kucinich is reaping what he his sour grapes has sown no matter how you want to spin it.

Edwards will win Iowa...anyone paying attention can see it if they understand the second choice vote...which Edwards has hands down...Kucinich should understand this..Hillary is not the one to beat in Iowa...She's the one to beat on the electronic voting machines...because she's the chosen one...the fix is still in...If Kucinich doesn't understand Politics in Iowa...he's another Jimmy Carter...Maybe a good man...but you have to play the game to get the job done in DC. Reality check...

Says it all:

Big Table Fantasies
PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 17, 2007
Broadly speaking, the serious contenders for the Democratic nomination are offering similar policy proposals — the dispute over health care mandates notwithstanding. But there are large differences among the candidates in their beliefs about what it will take to turn a progressive agenda into reality.

At one extreme, Barack Obama insists that the problem with America is that our politics are so "bitter and partisan," and insists that he can get things done by ushering in a "different kind of politics."

At the opposite extreme, John Edwards blames the power of the wealthy and corporate interests for our problems, and says, in effect, that America needs another F.D.R. — a polarizing figure, the object of much hatred from the right, who nonetheless succeeded in making big changes.

Over the last few days Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards have been conducting a long-range argument over health care that gets right to this issue. And I have to say that Mr. Obama comes off looking, well, naïve.

The argument began during the Democratic debate, when the moderator — Carolyn Washburn, the editor of The Des Moines Register — suggested that Mr. Edwards shouldn't be so harsh on the wealthy and special interests, because "the same groups are often responsible for getting things done in Washington."

Mr. Edwards replied, "Some people argue that we're going to sit at a table with these people and they're going to voluntarily give their power away. I think it is a complete fantasy; it will never happen."

This was pretty clearly a swipe at Mr. Obama, who has repeatedly said that health reform should be negotiated at a "big table" that would include insurance companies and drug companies.

On Saturday Mr. Obama responded, this time criticizing Mr. Edwards by name. He declared that "We want to reduce the power of drug companies and insurance companies and so forth, but the notion that they will have no say-so at all in anything is just not realistic."

Hmm. Do Obama supporters who celebrate his hoped-for ability to bring us together realize that "us" includes the insurance and drug lobbies?

O.K., more seriously, it's actually Mr. Obama who's being unrealistic here, believing that the insurance and drug industries — which are, in large part, the cause of our health care problems — will be willing to play a constructive role in health reform. The fact is that there's no way to reduce the gross wastefulness of our health system without also reducing the profits of the industries that generate the waste.

As a result, drug and insurance companies — backed by the conservative movement as a whole — will be implacably opposed to any significant reforms. And what would Mr. Obama do then? "I'll get on television and say Harry and Louise are lying," he says. I'm sure the lobbyists are terrified.

As health care goes, so goes the rest of the progressive agenda. Anyone who thinks that the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world.

Which brings me to a big worry about Mr. Obama: in an important sense, he has in effect become the anti-change candidate.

There's a strong populist tide running in America right now. For example, a recent Democracy Corps survey of voter discontent found that the most commonly chosen phrase explaining what's wrong with the country was "Big businesses get whatever they want in Washington."

And there's every reason to believe that the Democrats can win big next year if they run with that populist tide. The latest evidence came from focus groups run by both Fox News and CNN during last week's Democratic debate: both declared Mr. Edwards the clear winner.

But the news media recoil from populist appeals. The Des Moines Register, which endorsed Mr. Edwards in 2004, rejected him this time on the grounds that his "harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change."

And while The Register endorsed Hillary Clinton, the prime beneficiary of media distaste for populism has clearly been Mr. Obama, with his message of reconciliation. According to a recent survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, Mr. Obama's coverage has been far more favorable than that of any other candidate.

So what happens if Mr. Obama is the nominee?

He will probably win — but not as big as a candidate who ran on a more populist platform. Let's be blunt: pundits who say that what voters really want is a candidate who makes them feel good, that they want an end to harsh partisanship, are projecting their own desires onto the public.

And nothing Mr. Obama has said suggests that he appreciates the bitterness of the battles he will have to fight if he does become president, and tries to get anything done.

I like his foreign policy too. Remember when everyone criticized him for getting serious about Pakistan? Yeah, boy, DC's conventional wisdom sure is on top of world affairs. No wonder we ended up in Iraq.

If anything, back in August Obama should have been given points for being the only Democrat candidate who actually came out against supporting a military dictatorship as the cost of 'national security'. At that time he rightfully and roundly criticized Musharraf and gave voice to the need for a 'democratic ally' in Pakistan, before it was at all clear that Bhutto would return. Unlike Iraq, Pakistan had a functioning democracy until Musharraf overthrew it.

"The United States is a democratic government, and democratic governments should work for democratic values across the globe. Pakistan is no exception."- Pakistan Supreme Court Justice Rana Bhagwandas

www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/world/asia/06pakistan.html

"When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland. " - Barack Obama

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.event&event_id=269510

Vern wrote: "For one thing Obama & kucinich engage in fluffy feel-good platitudes & at the same time kucinich has an unevolved spiteful aspect to his nature that holds a grudge and seeks payback—all for his ego and the expense of everything–everything he claims to make a righteous stand for."

So Edwards does not hold a grudge? Read the following:

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/politicians/edwards/story/750356.html

With regards to Doug, he makes valid points about the way cash filters into a campaign. While i don't support his candidate, everyone here ought to have a voice, but the sentiments against anyone not voting for Edwards gets trashed by Edwards sheep marching lock step. This represents more of the attributes we are likely to see if Edwards wins the nomination as noted in the attack on a student journalist making a valid point noted in the article above.

When are you people going to grow up.

As for healthcare economics

The Edwards plan and the Clinton plan omit one major indeterminate cost- the fact that they provide no monetary figures for the cost of mandating insurance. In Massachusetts, the costs are so high nearly 20% of the population does not participate.

As Obama says, "Cost is the number one reason that 47 million Americans do not have health insurance and thousands more are edging toward bankruptcy every day…What I have said repeatedly is that the reason people don't have health insurance is not because they don't want it, it's because they can't afford it." He has never ruled out a mandate, he has said we have to take on the health insurance corporations and address the underlying costs of healthcare first, before we can legislate an affordable mandate for ALL AMERICANS.

What good is an unaffordable health care mandate? What are we going to do, throw everyone in prison who doesn't have health insurance when they're caught speeding?

The Federal Employees Plan

"To begin with, not everyone makes the $165,000 a year or so that members of Congress do. In fact, at least 100,000 federal workers — at least 5 percent of the active work force — do not have health insurance. In many cases, according to the union that represents the workers, they consider even the cheapest options within the federal plan unaffordable. The lowest-priced family coverage offered by Blue Cross, for example, costs the employee about $2,400 a year."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/business/20fedhealth.html

The Masachussetts Plan

"But the reluctance of so many to enroll, along with the possible exemption of 60,000 residents who cannot afford premiums, has raised questions about whether even a mandate can guarantee truly universal coverage.

Additional concerns have been generated by projections that the state's insurers plan to raise rates 10 percent to 12 percent next year, twice this year's national average. That would undercut the plan's secondary goal of slowing the increase in health costs."We're going to be very aggressive in trying to get those numbers down to single digits," said Jon M. Kingsdale, executive director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, the agency that markets the subsidized insurance policies. "If we continue with double-digit inflation, I don't think health reform is sustainable."…

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois sees it a different way. He argues there is danger in mandating coverage before it is clear it can be affordable for those at the margins. While Mr. Obama does not rule out a mandate down the road, his emphasis is on reducing costs and providing generous government subsidies to those who need them. He would mandate coverage for children. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us/politics/25mass.html

As for Obama's accomplishments, let's start with bundlers.

"In the first two weeks of the 110th Congress, Senator Obama helped lead the Senate to pass the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act, a comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform bill, by a 96-2 vote. This landmark bill was signed into law by the President in September 2007.

The final bill that the Congress passed closely mirrored and drew key provisions in a bill (S. 230) that Senators Obama and Feingold introduced in January 2007 to establish a "gold standard" for reform. Among the provisions in the Obama-Feingold bill that were adopted by the Senate and the House were: strict bans on receiving gifts and meals from lobbyists; new rules to slow the revolving door between public and private sector service; and an end to the subsidized use of corporate jets.

Most importantly, the final reform bill contained a provision pushed by Senator Obama to require the disclosure of contributions that registered lobbyists "bundle" – that is, collect or arrange – for candidates, leadership PACs, and party committees. The New York Times called this provision "the most sweeping" in the bill, and the Washington Post said: "No single change would add more to public understanding of how money really operates in Washington."

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/ethics_and_lobbying_reform/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011802176.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/us/politics/20ethics.html

Oh yes, the infamous Paul Street attack lines. I apologize, wordpress must selectively edit, and I felt the need to repost in smaller forms since i have posted before and been selectively edited out.

However, thanks rmax for the umpteenth Paul Street haywire analysis of political economy. Street is entitled to his whacked out opinion, but it is whacked out.

Example 1: "Dealing with Serbia in the 1990s cemented the neocon-neolib entente. By Sept. 11, 2001, these two groups had converged as a single ideological family. They agreed that American nationalism was best expressed in world affairs as a progressive imperialism. The rallying call for armed action would be promoting human rights and democratic government among peoples who resisted American hegemony." – Paul Street http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?%20SectionID=72&ItemID=12928

Who elected Musharraf and the Taliban to run Afghanistan and Pakistan? Of course any political grouping with enough guns and minimal investments in twentieth century modernity, (The Taliban outlawed music, girls schools, and required women to wear head-to-toe coverings among other things like chopping people's hands off for stealing), is going to oppose them when they try to just take power with the barrel of a gun and enforce an archaic and ethnically-exclusive form of Islam on everybody who is Afghan.

Who elected Milosevic to run Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, and Bosnia? FYI, the Green Party of Germany voted to authorize Germany to participate in NATO operations in Kosovo in 1999. Kosovo is 90% Albanian. Milosevic was responsible for genocide in Kosovo and Bosnia and today there is peace in those nations because of NATO intervention. Intervention through NATO in Southeastern Europe has brought increased stability to not just the former republics of Yugoslavia, but to the entire region which was impacted by emigration out of the conflict zones. Is ending genocide in the Balkans more important than ending genocide somewhere else? No. Was it more practical to intervene in the Balkans in the 1990s than in Iraq in 2003-2009(dread ) given the assets of the states participating in the coalition, our relations with states neighboring the conflict zone, and the logistical-space of the area in which American soliders would operate? Yes.

Furthermore, one American politician's hypocrisy does not make everyone who does believe in human rights and democratic government as rationales for using military force in their turn hypocrites.

Example 2: "[Obama] praises the architects of the Cold War for checking the Soviet Union's nefarious designs "to spread [in Obama's words] its totalitarian brand of communism."- Paul Street
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?%20SectionID=72&ItemID=12928

Obama's words? Give me a break. They were also Trotksy's words. The fact that "the USSR modeled the possibility of independent national development outside the parameters of U.S.-led world-capitalist supervision" does not dismiss the fascism that made it possible. Hitler also modeled a possibility of independent development outside the parameters of British-led world-capitalist development and the fascism of Mobutuism 'modeled a possibility of independent development outside the parameters of US-led world-capitalist development'. There is nothing intrinsic to that outsider status that is inherently good.

"The so-called friends of the Soviet Union (left democrats, pacifists, Brandlerites, and the like) repeat the argument of the Comintern functionaries that the struggle against the Stalinist bureaucracy, i.e., first of all criticism of its false policies, "helps the counter-revolution." This is the standpoint of the political lackeys of the bureaucracy, but never that of revolutionists. The Soviet Union both internally and externally can be defended only by means of a correct policy. All other considerations are either secondary or simply lying phrases.

The present CPSU is not a party but an apparatus of domination in the hands of an uncontrolled bureaucracy. Within the framework of the CPSU and outside of it takes place the grouping of the scattered elements of the two basic parties: the proletarian and the Thermidorean-Bonapartist. Rising above both of them, the centrist bureaucracy wages a war of annihilation against the Bolshevik-Leninists. While coming into sharp clashes from time to time with their Thermidorean half-allies, the Stalinists, nevertheless, clear the road for the latter by crushing, strangling, and corrupting the Bolshevik Party."

"Only the creation of the Marxist International, completely independent of the Stalinist bureaucracy and counterposed politically to it, can save the USSR from collapse by binding its destiny with the destiny of the world proletarian revolution."- Leon Trotsky

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1933/330715.htm

As I have stated before, Paul Street's cynicism is not refreshing and is exactly why I am not voting for the warmongering Edwards or the Clintons.